Brock Manson

Robbie Williams - Angels Ah cannit beat a big group singalong to this one.

You listening Brock ? 55881[/snapback] I'll have you know he was one of my faves when I was 8 years old. Back when there was little talking and when I watched the 'sport'. 55904[/snapback] Sport ? You are having a fucking laugh ! 55916[/snapback] you missed the inverted commas... Perhaps I should've been more obvious and said panto. 55926[/snapback] His eyesight went a long time ago Brock. And we all know why. 55929[/snapback] Aye doing a bit of wrestling of his own 55941[/snapback] Pulling himself round the ring, if you will. 55945[/snapback] Headlock, followed by a bodysplash... 55949[/snapback] Irish whip...

Always been Brock Manson. Except when the old new board opened (now nufc online?) and I thought I had to sign in again. Wouldn't let me be 'Brock Manson' so I was 'Brock Manson #2'.

You listening Brock ? 55881[/snapback] I'll have you know he was one of my faves when I was 8 years old. Back when there was little talking and when I watched the 'sport'. 55904[/snapback] Sport ? You are having a fucking laugh ! 55916[/snapback] you missed the inverted commas... Perhaps I should've been more obvious and said panto. 55926[/snapback] His eyesight went a long time ago Brock. And we all know why. 55929[/snapback] Aye doing a bit of wrestling of his own

Whoever's responsible for celebrity reality TV shows.

You listening Brock ? 55881[/snapback] I'll have you know he was one of my faves when I was 8 years old. Back when there was little talking and when I watched the 'sport'. 55904[/snapback] Sport ? You are having a fucking laugh ! 55916[/snapback] you missed the inverted commas... Perhaps I should've been more obvious and said panto.

She had all the bits she's supposed to have! Here you go then - things that make you go "awwwwwww......." 55913[/snapback] heh aw bless

He had a weird nickname, iyam... 55912[/snapback]

You listening Brock ? 55881[/snapback] I'll have you know he was one of my faves when I was 8 years old. Back when there was little talking and when I watched the 'sport'.

Fuck me Eddie's dead? He was one of the original WCW guys. R.I.P.

That Bacardi advert witht he people dancing makes me titter. There is no bad dancing.

Care to explain?

How wude! Who's getting personal? I wasn't suggesting you're an idiot (I even clarified I wasn't in brackets). Why would I PM you? If anyone's an idiot it must be me. Everyone loves Saw. I'm the one who's missing something. 55813[/snapback] I wasn't getting personal If you're admitting you're missing the film watch it again. The acting isn't crap That's like saying Hayden Christiansen deserves an oscar for his "noooooooo" at the end of Revenge of the Sith tbh. 55817[/snapback] Eh? Are you trying to baffle me with wordplay? You suggested I was getting personal and should take it to PM (then called me a fucknugget). To verify I wasn't getting personal I said "who's getting personal?". Now you suggest I accused you of getting personal although I didn't (even though you called me a "fucknugget"!) . And that analogy has stopped me in my tracks. How can I argue with such illogicality? Let's see if I can get to the root of your point... If acting in one film is shit, shit acting in another film deserves an Oscar? That can't be it. The acting in Sith was shit but was Oscar worthy compared to Saw? That's it. Right? 55823[/snapback] Ah but I added a ' ' to 'fucknugget' so I was only fooling. I was trying to put across that the acting is Saw isn't shit. Put it this way: if someone said the acting in star wars ROTS is great, they'd be wrong (although I did like the film since it tied up the loose ends). Just like someone who says the acting in Saw is shit, if you ask me they're wrong. Can't see why you'd think that myself but again, you have your opinion and I have mine. But the acting isn't shit.

Worst analogy ever! 55820[/snapback] I thought it was rather good

How wude! Who's getting personal? I wasn't suggesting you're an idiot (I even clarified I wasn't in brackets). Why would I PM you? If anyone's an idiot it must be me. Everyone loves Saw. I'm the one who's missing something. 55813[/snapback] I wasn't getting personal If you're admitting you're missing the film watch it again. The acting isn't crap That's like saying Hayden Christiansen deserves an oscar for his "noooooooo" at the end of Revenge of the Sith tbh.

Eh? If you valued life you'd kill some random bloke who as far as you know might help you go on living? The wink doesn't doesn't reduce the idiocy of such a notion (the film makers idiocy that is, not yours). And if he killed this Adam fella he'd have got a ten stretch. How would that make him value life more? I'm arguing plot points over a film I haven't seen for years and had little interest in on that single viewing so forgive me if I've failed to recognise any of it's subtle points. 55801[/snapback] Probably wouldn't have got a sentence thinking about it since his and his family's lives were at stake though. Fiml makers' idiocy? Not at all. But if we're going to get personal over this keep it to pm. (you fucknugget ) I can't be arsed to explain the plot to you, since you've made up your mind that the film is shit what's the point. It would be like trying to get me to watch AI again (worst. film. ever.). But for anyone else: Long story short Adam and Lawrence in a room, Lawrence has to kill Adam otherwise his family are murdered and he's left stuck in the room. It has Ken Leung in it and he rules. "wipe yourself. You're bleeding." Rush Hour.

Naw I didn't give anything away but Saw 2 does give a bit of background info on why Jigsaw kills people the way he does. I had to be careful to offer the Saw 1 explanation and not the Saw 2 that's all.

Drowning Pool - Tear Away

Was it jack dee they launched at a pile of s**t last comic relief? That made me laugh.

Hang on. People who've become severeley disfigured crawling through forty odd foot of barbed wire or sawing off their own limbs are going to enjoy life more for having 'won the game'? He shows life shouldn't be abused by....er...abusing life? If they're likely to go on living, why do so few survive? Or do you mean people reading it in the papers or us watching the film will value life more for having seen it? In which case you're probably right, I know that spending time doing anything other than watching Saw is time well spent. Now I get it. 55790[/snapback] All he had to do was kill adam, he didn't necessarily have to saw his foot off to do that did he? If you truly valued life, you'd put a bit more effort into getting out wouldn't you? Amanda wasn't horribly disfigured now was she? (She's in Saw 2, felt sorry for the poor lass ) Why do so few survive? Because they didn't play the game properly. Yewut?

You sir are mistaken if you think Saw was not a good film. Especially ebaring in mind they spent what little money they had getting Danny Glover and Cary Ewes (sp?) (and Ken Leung ). Saw reminded me of a film called Adaptation. In that, a character called Donald is an aspiring screenwriter. He goes to seminars and reads books on how to write a script. In the end his idea is that he'll do a serial killer film called "The 3". In it a serial killer is after a girl, and a hard nosed cop is trying to catch the killer but the twist is that they're all the same person. They get involved in horse back chases and everything but they're the same person all along. It mocks how idiotic most American 'thrillers' are, but Saw was even more stupid. There was no rhyme nor reason to anything that went on. It could be forgiven if it was scary but it wasn't. The scariest thing is that the cinematographer is getting work. Darkness can be used expertly in a horror (see The descent but in Saw it seems they expect you just to be scared of the dark, they don't light any of the darkness to give you an idea of what's supposed to be scary. Another 'loud bangs and quick cuts' film that left me bored I'm afraid. 55746[/snapback] Loud bangs and quick cuts? Not the sort of scare the film is going for at all. The dark isn't meant to be scary in this film, hence for a good 3/4 of it the lights are on. Just because a film is in the horror genre does that immediately require it to be full of ghosts and dark corners and the odd person running around screaming? Maybe in the 50's... The first time I watched Saw, it was late, I'd had a chinese and was ready for a scary film to relax to, what I got was a gripping film which bloody spooked the crap outta me! The plot was very well-written, and did you see the twist at the end coming? Like bugger you did. No rhyme nor reaosn to what was going on? Were you paying attention? If you were you'd see how the story linked together, and whilst I'll admit is was a bit far-fetched how Zapp's game came about (you have a slow-acting poison in your system ) but that was my only gripe. Which I formed after the 3rd play-through. But you didn't like it, fair enough, does that really mean it wasn't a good movie? However coming out and calling it 'more stupid' than 'most idiot american thrillers' is bullshit imo. I've just remembered that James Wan didn't direct Saw 2, which was a bit weird since he and Leigh Whannel were the ones who came up with Saw (Wan came up with the idea of two blokes chained in a room and Whannel got his head down and wrote the script). Personally I thought Wan did a good job for the 1st one but it's a matter of opinion I suppose. SOme will prefer the 1st, others the 2nd. 55774[/snapback] Perhaps it went over my head. I'd gladly admit that, if you can explain to me why he was killing them as he was. Just because you don't see a twist, doesn't make it good. The twist at the end of Gozu will not have been expected by a living soul, but it doesn't provide greater depth to what previously occured. 55780[/snapback] If I told you that I'd ruin quite a bit of Saw 2 Basically your killer, Jigsaw is a cancer patient so is going to die at some point (not int he film mind). He therefore feels the need to demonstrate that life should be respected and not abused, that's why his victims are drug addicts, suicidal people, hypchondriacs etc. The 'games' are his way of making people respect their life as unlike him they're likely to go on living. Oh and he watches them as most psychos do that weird sort of thing.

You sir are mistaken if you think Saw was not a good film. Especially ebaring in mind they spent what little money they had getting Danny Glover and Cary Ewes (sp?) (and Ken Leung ). Saw reminded me of a film called Adaptation. In that, a character called Donald is an aspiring screenwriter. He goes to seminars and reads books on how to write a script. In the end his idea is that he'll do a serial killer film called "The 3". In it a serial killer is after a girl, and a hard nosed cop is trying to catch the killer but the twist is that they're all the same person. They get involved in horse back chases and everything but they're the same person all along. It mocks how idiotic most American 'thrillers' are, but Saw was even more stupid. There was no rhyme nor reason to anything that went on. It could be forgiven if it was scary but it wasn't. The scariest thing is that the cinematographer is getting work. Darkness can be used expertly in a horror (see The descent but in Saw it seems they expect you just to be scared of the dark, they don't light any of the darkness to give you an idea of what's supposed to be scary. Another 'loud bangs and quick cuts' film that left me bored I'm afraid. 55746[/snapback] Loud bangs and quick cuts? Not the sort of scare the film is going for at all. The dark isn't meant to be scary in this film, hence for a good 3/4 of it the lights are on. Just because a film is in the horror genre does that immediately require it to be full of ghosts and dark corners and the odd person running around screaming? Maybe in the 50's... The first time I watched Saw, it was late, I'd had a chinese and was ready for a scary film to relax to, what I got was a gripping film which bloody spooked the crap outta me! The plot was very well-written, and did you see the twist at the end coming? Like bugger you did. No rhyme nor reaosn to what was going on? Were you paying attention? If you were you'd see how the story linked together, and whilst I'll admit is was a bit far-fetched how Zapp's game came about (you have a slow-acting poison in your system ) but that was my only gripe. Which I formed after the 3rd play-through. But you didn't like it, fair enough, does that really mean it wasn't a good movie? However coming out and calling it 'more stupid' than 'most idiot american thrillers' is bullshit imo. I've just remembered that James Wan didn't direct Saw 2, which was a bit weird since he and Leigh Whannel were the ones who came up with Saw (Wan came up with the idea of two blokes chained in a room and Whannel got his head down and wrote the script). Personally I thought Wan did a good job for the 1st one but it's a matter of opinion I suppose. SOme will prefer the 1st, others the 2nd.

Did anyone watch Twin Warriors last week? How class was that film? (ok wires aplenty so what ) On me xmas list!

Was never willing to risk it, and amazon are usually fairly cheap anyway.

You sir are mistaken if you think Saw was not a good film. Especially ebaring in mind they spent what little money they had getting Danny Glover and Cary Ewes (sp?) (and Ken Leung ). Saw II kicks off with a guy in a chair with a mask attached to his neck (see pic). If he doesn't find the key to get the mask off, it'll snap shut. I won't spoil where the key is but I guess you can tell from the pic. The plot is quite clever, one massive twist at the end which some might see coming (I didn't though). The way all the traps are thought out is cleverly done but you might want to avert your eyes for some of them... If the actors were shite, this movie wouldn't be as good but thankfully they're believable so no quelms there. I wouldn't say it's better than the original though, as in that one there were just the 2 guys in a room and it was a lot more tense and gripping stuff. This time around they've opted for shocking as they've basically shot a similar film on a larger scale. Go and see it if you like scary films, it isn't one of those shitty ones where a ghoulie jumps out from behind a bush, rather one that'll make you think "why the hell would you do that to someone ". BUT I reckon it helps if you've seen the first film, there's a massive nod to it towards the end which you wont understand the significance otherwise. Go for the plot at least, it's very clever.